The MPLS WG Archive

["Adrian Farrel" <afarrel@movaz.com>]

Bert,
Thanks. All nits are most welcome. I, for one, welcome your efforts to get RFCs
in clear and correct English.

A couple of follow-up questions/comments in the snipped text below...

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>


> A lot of it is indeed nits/spelling/grammar
> stuff... do I have to repat that for all docs, or can I assume
> that the authors/editors will seriously check those things
> themselves?

Hmmm. I know what you SHOULD be able to asume...

> - I see you use mib module names with an underscore, for example
>   MPLS-LDP_MIB, but the real module name is MPLS-LDP-MIB
>   Better get that in sync. True for most mib module names I believe

Ah! I made this global change after I thought I heard Tom suggest that you said
that the use of underscore was a requirement. At least one of us is out of synch
here - I will change back to hyphen.

> - Make descriptors consistent. Like
>    - mplsLdpEntityFrameRelayXxxxx
>    - mplsLdpEntityConfFrXxxx
>   so either make all freme-relay stuff xxxFrameRelayYyy or xxxFrYyy
>   but do not mix all that. I also wonder why in some case
>   Fr comes before the Xxxx and in other cases after it.
>    - mplsLdpEntityFrameRelayXxxxx
>    - mplsLdpEntityConfFrXxxx
>   why not mplsLdpEntityFrameRelayConfXxxx
>  Are mplsTunnelResourceTable and mplsTunnelCRDLPResTable both "resource"
>   tables? If so, then why not use "Resource" in both cases, or just "Res"
>   in both cases?  Consistency please!!!!!
>   So Tunnel Computed Hop Table is: mplsTunnelCHopTable
>   and Tunnel Actual Hop Table is: mplsTunnelARHopTable
>   is the R for Route? If so then add Route in there

Agreed. This draft, however, can only report what is in the MIB modules
themselves.

Tom and Joan - relying on you to pick up these things and then I'll change the
overview to match.

>   Question: Is there also a mplsTunnelRSVPResTable? If yes, then I am
>   missing it here, if no, then why is that not needed?

Good question.
No there is no RSVP resource table. CR-LDP resource specification is a superset
of RSVP resource specification.
I will add a note explaining.

> - sect 7.2
>   ".. mplsTunnelMaxHops defines the size of route that may be configured
>    on the LSR."
>   I have difficulty understanding what that means.
>   What is the "size of route"?

Syntax is "size of route that", but I agree that this could be clearer.

> - Your references to PWE3 and PPVPN WG docs are listed as normative.
>   I doubt that they really are. In any event, if they are normative,
>   then they will have to be ready for RFC at the same time that this
>   doc goes to RFC.

You're right. Old reference from when we thought we were going to include them
in detail.

> - Your split of references for the SNMP boilerplate text is not
>   correct. The correct split is:
[SNIP]
> - We're working on the new MIB boilerplate. Much shorter. Not 100% stable
>   yet. If you prefer to use it (I assume the new boiler plate will be
>   stable by the time you go to RFC-Editor queue), then I can send you what
>   the curretn text looks like.

I will wait as late as I can and then include the most up-to-date version.
But...
Do you consider that the boilerplate is appropriate for inclusion in this
overview or should I aim to hack it down? Actually, if the new material is
shorter, perhaps it will be fine.